>packet degradation It's digital. You can't degrade the image in that way. If data transmission is limited, then we'd still see a better image with more compression artifacts, but even that'd be pretty pointless. Why not wait longer for better quality? No, it's all bullshit. The shitty pictures is used the same way a soothsayer uses vagueries. It allows them to slot in whatever theory or observation fits their fancy, with the ability to revise any errors later on. They did the same thing for the moonlanding. The original footage was destroyed, and tv channels were never allowed a direct feed to copy it. Instead they had to point their cameras at a television that was displaying the moonlanding. Degrading the quality severely. Today, we have no good footage of the supposed moonlanding, even while using the absolute best quality equipment.